Talk:Star Fleet Battles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
I thought, and I could be wrong, that the Fed NCL in the game was based on the USS Reliant from The Wrath Of Khan. If so, the films have not been totally ignored as far as actual ship types go.TheChin! 22:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] 19 Mar 05
The Federation NCL in SFB and the movie Reliant ships are paralell evolution. The truth is, the Kersarge-Class NCL has it's two warp engines mounted from a V pylon on the top of the impulse deck, but the SSD does leave the impression that they are mounted on the outer edges.
"Plus, Star Fleet Command decided to make their ships based of the Canon movie series instead of the original SFB style ships. Dunno why. They took liberties with the rest of the fleets in the game." Lucky Foot 18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
To answer that: The original game license follows the one-off book published in the 70s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Trek_Star_Fleet_Technical_Manual#UFP_Seal and could not be used for the video game. Wikipedia users sometimes do not understand that many publications related to Trek are not owned directly by Paramount and are each copywritten and treated separately.
Addendum: The unusual way of numbering the rules will be familiar to anyone in the US Military or any US Government branch. Until Clinton, all US Gov't publications were written this way.
- Actually, that has nothing to do with the ship designs mentioned. The people who did Starfleet Command had licenses from both Paramount (which allowed them to use the movies-era designs) and ADB (which allowed them to use SFB's rules and background. The point of departure mentioned above is that they completely redesigned the look of the non-Paramount (i.e., ADB-created) races for the game (which their licenses would have allowed them to use verbatim, if they so choose). Presumably they decided that the normal designs wouldn't look good from the front and side perspectives normally seen in the game, instead of the top views you normally get in SFB. I don't really care for the directions they went in for some of it, but I'm pretty sure it's all a visual interest issue. --Rindis 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Star Fleet Battle Force
There is a debate as to whether Star Fleet Battle Force should be deleted. it would be helpful to get some input from various users about this game. please feel free to go to the article and to follow the link there to the deletion discussion, and, if you wish, to add some comments. --Steve, Sm8900 13:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ship designs and game rules
As an original player of the game when it first came out, I was enthralled. As each of the three expansions came out to fill in the stuff that was missing, my friends and I were even more enthusiastic. However, with the advent of the commander's rulebooks and countless articles both official or otherwise, the game became less enjoyable. The worst was spending three hours listening to two rules lawyers dictate one obscure rule after another as they pulled magazine after rulebook after magazine from a SPORTS BAG! Talk about missing the point. When my friend and I decided to self-destruct to end the agony, one of them promptly pulled another rulebook out and quoted a rule that forbade us from doing so... AAAARRGHH!
I have since revamped the rules, stripped them down to their more basic elements, and added some goodies of my own. As far as the ships are concerned, the SSDs looked worse and worse with every new version/edition. So, I junked most of the old SSDs and did my own using AutoCAD. After making the SSDs look more like the ships they're supposed to represent and throwing out about 90% of the rules written for the game, my friends, after an almost 20-year hiatus are playing again with renewed vigor. I can't sell anything I've done or I'd get my ass sued.
As for the Reliant, I did a heavy cruiser version, complete with roll bar/weapons pod that would knock the socks off anything from the ADB. Also, some of the ships I've seen SSDs for are completely ridiculous. What was it?... the Klingon B-11 oxymoron battleship or something like that. Some people have made ships that make no sense whatsoever: A ship with over a dozen weapons, oodles of power, but only two hull boxes. <sigh> I also have no room for unnecessary stupidity such as Light Command Battle Destroyer Leaders. Sheesh. Anyway, simpler rules makes for better tactics. I would rather defeat an opponent because I out-anticipated him rather than because I could remember more rules than he could. The dice already add a sufficient level of randomness to the game that gives it re-playability.
Eddie baby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.228.110.46 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Primary Sources template
I have removed the primary sources template. First, the primary sources requirement is marked as controversial and under review, so should probably not be applied. Also, this article list other sources where necessary, such as the Hall of Fame award. Other references could not possibly include secondary sources as the article refers to a game system with copyrighted information. The primary sources template should be used for historical and biographical articles, and would not apply in this case.
Iarann 19:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Universe logo.jpg
Image:Universe logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CommanderSFB.gif
Image:CommanderSFB.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
